CASE BRIEF

Appelhans v. McFall,
325 Ill. App. 3d 232, 239, 259 Ill.Dec. 124, 757 N.E.2d 987 (2001).

Facts
Maxine Appelhans, (Plaintiff), was walking along a rural road with no sidewalk when
five-year-old William McFall (Defendant) collided into her from behind as he rode his
bicycle. Defendants parents were not watching him when the accident occurred.
Plaintiff broke her hip and later filed her fourth amended complaint, in which she claimed
that the Defendant rode his bicycle negligently and that his parents negligently failed to
educate him on the use of the bicycle or supervise him while he rode it. The parents
moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs complaint of two counts of negligence and the trial court
granted their motion. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue #1
Did the trial court properly grant Defendants motion to dismiss of Plaintiffs claims of
negligence against the child and his parents?

Rules of Law
The tender years doctrine states that a child under the age of seven is incapable of
recognizing and appreciating risk and is therefore deemed incapable of negligence as a
matter of law. Plaintiff argued that that doctrine was outdated, but the principle of stare
decisis (precedence) required the court to follow the rule.

A plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants actions amounted to negligence.

To prove a claim of negligent supervision, a plaintiff must show that:

The parents were aware of specific instances of prior conduct sufficient to put
them on notice that the act complained of was likely to occur, and
The parents had the opportunity to control the child.
Restatement (Second) of Torts 316.

Lisa Hendler Page 1 of 2 5/6/17

Holding and Reasoning

Yes, the trial court properly dismissed the negligence allegations.

The Plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a question of fact as to
whether Williams parents were negligent in parental supervision. William was
excluded as a matter of law because he was 5 years old.
Affirmed.

Lisa Hendler Page 2 of 2 5/6/17